Creativity, skepticism, and visioning the future

Members of the World Futures Studies Federation share not only the usual professional goals of advancing and developing their field, but also an extraordinary commitment to envisioning and creating a future world of increasing human freedom and well-being. Both aims, obviously, would be moved forward if futurists could establish more futures studies courses, departments, and research centers than now exist at colleges and universities. To do so requires vigor, creativity, and élan, which futurists seem to have in abundance, but it also demands more logical and empirical rigor, skepticism, and critical capacity in futures work.     

Memories and methods: conversations with Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin Sardar and Richard Slaughter

The history and development of futures studies is explored in interviews with three leading futurists. Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin Sardar and Richard Slaughter provide a personal perspective on their involvement in the field and the World Futures Studies Federation and reflect on future possibilities.     

A vision of futures studies

The article looks at futures studies from the point of view of the author who has spent over 30 years in the field, with special reference to the World Futures Studies Federation. It suggests that visions are essential for conducting futures studies and education in futures studies is vital for preparing future oriented new generations. The author points out that around the world women are developing silent alternatives to the present societies geared to conflict and violence; this may lead to non-violent changes of which many are not aware. Futures studies will also benefit from examining futures of cultures as we seem to be developing a new culture of peace.     

Rethinking futures studies

The author traces the development of futures studies from the Second World war and considers its philosophical basis. Futures thinking is seen as vision; futurists have special responsibilities as they are part of the world they describe. Futures thinking is seen as a learning process.     

The state of future in international relations

This paper elaborates the state of Future in International Relations from a comparative theoretical perspective with regard to the selected methodological tools of Futures Studies. It, first, looks into the development of International Relations and Futures Studies to point out, how their contextual, conceptual and epistemological similarities and dissimilarities emerged in due course. It, then, analyses to what extent the methodological differences between selected Futures Studies techniques (e.g. forecasting, trend analysis, Delphi, backcasting, causal layered analysis and integral futures approach) intersect with the conceptual and normative differences between contemporary theories of International Relations stemming from Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Post-structuralism, Normative Theory and Critical Theory. The paper characterizes the relevant futures techniques with reference to the theories of International Relations, and scrutinizes selected futuristic narratives of International Relations from a methodological perspective. It, then, elaborates how Futures Studies and International Relations can benefit from each other’s strengths in terms of their methodologies and assumptions. The article finally explores to what extent the promises of Futures Studies techniques conjure up a convergence between different theories of International Relations.     

Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The term we use to describe the study or research of the future or futures is indeed important, and “futures studies” is preferable, although there is considerable dispute as to who and what is involved. Even more important is the far deeper problem of defining the “we” and what “we” in fact do. Futures studies not only considers wickedly complex problems, but it is itself a wicked entity, with many puzzles and contradictions. To illustrate, a taxonomy of 12 types of futurists, first articulated in 1985, is revisited, with special emphasis on the relative handful of Synoptic Generalists, the larger category of Specialized Futurists, the still larger entity of Futurized Specialists, and the largest entity of Closet Futurists who think about futures-often in a leading-edge way-but do not identify at all with futures studies, or are seen as futurists. Most contributors to Futures and other futures journals, as well as listees in the 2000 Futurist Directory, appear to have a secondary “futurist” identity at best. The fuzzy entity of “futures studies” is thus quite unlike any field or discipline, because it is easily entered by specialists who identify with the entity weakly, while many of the most important futures-thinkers are outside the entity. Instead of denying this paradox, the reality should be acknowledged, and an alterative paradigm for “futures studies” should be seriously considered.     

Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality-based view

Futures-thinking in various ways may or may not be expanding. But it is clearly an ever-changing activity, and appears to be ever more fragmented by culture, subject matter, style, and ideology. ‘Futures Studies (FS)’ as a subset of this larger activity is highly problematic as a viable entity, due to seven disabling myths: that FS is a field, that futurists are generalists, that futurists are primarily ‘futurists’, that FS does what no one else does, that FS is generally understood and appreciated, that FS is static, and that FS is a community. In contrast to these idealized but unsupported myths, the world of futures-thinking is presented as it really is, based on the author’s preparation of over 20,000 abstracts of futures-relevant literature over the past 30 years. Underlying complexity and wide diversity are sketched in three synoptic charts on the six purposive categories of futures-thinking (and 115 different terms that have been used), 17 general topical categories, and 12 generic continua on which futures-thinkers can be located. Based on this complex and fuzzy reality, futures studies should embrace its distinctiveness and strive to be a horizontal field connecting all others—a visible, respected, and ever-renewing network of humble hubs for integrative ‘big picture’ thinking about trends and visions of probable, possible, and preferable futures. To attain this status in the decades ahead, FS must communicate a shared and frequently-revised vision, emphasize all six purposive categories (especially integration and questioning), develop a serious global information system (and use it), establish an academic presence at leading institutions, fight back against ignorant futurist-bashers, promote multiple excellences, engage in ‘second profession’ recruitment and training, and secure adequate funding. These actions are necessary for establishing any meaningful ‘futures studies’ community.     

Epistemology and public policy: using a new typology to analyse the paradigm shift in Finnish transport futures studies

The aim of the article is to present a new typology of paradigms of futures studies with specific focus on decision-making. Possible roles of futurists and other actors in long-term planning and decision-making processes are formed using logical analysis. The resulting seven schools of thought are interpreted in the light of literature of futures studies and planning theory. Connections to the philosophical discussion on the role of knowledge and values in policy recommendations are presented as well. Some futures studies methodological applications are attached to the paradigms. The new typology forms a gradient from technocracy performed by professionals to direct citizen participation. Finally, the paradigm shift of Finnish national transport futures studies is analysed using the new typology.     

A community of futurists and the state of the futures field

Criticisms of futures studies ought to be evaluated in comparison with those of other fields. For example, compared to the established disciplines, futures studies is less fragmented and has many positive features. Also, controversies among futurists do not mean that futures studies is not a field. Rather, one hallmark of any field of inquiry is that its members constitute a disputatious community. Moreover, futures studies is unified by interlinked and overlapping networks of communications and influences among futurists, a shared transdisciplinary matrix, and the growth of a futurist canon. The future of futures studies is bright, because it is reasonable to hope that futurists will be able to establish the field in most of the world’s colleges and universities.     

From change to progress: critical spirituality and the futures of futures studies

This paper argues that for futures studies (FS) to have a future that is relevant to current shifts in meaning and consciousness, then it must incorporate into its methods and practices a sense of mystery founded on a critically spiritual sensibility. Critical spirituality redefines rationality and empiricism by including within their framework both the somatic and the meditative as valid and necessary components of any research activity. In the short term this means a shift away from the current Western obsession with change and a stepping back to allow for critical distance in order to understand that it is in the appreciation of progress — a fundamental shift in consciousness to include the spiritual dimensions of human experience — that discourse will emerge to take FS to the heart of civilisational renewal. In allowing for mystery, silence and the meditative empiricism required to access these categories, critical spirituality lessens the gap between thought and action and thus enables truly transformative academic practice to emerge.The idea of progress has been central to the unfolding of the modernist project over the previous century. Yet as the century drew to a close it became increasingly hard to keep faith with the idea in the face of growing disillusionment and the obvious failure of modernism to deliver what people most wanted: happiness born of personal fulfillment. A growing range of voices in the critical futures field have been questioning the assumption that change in material terms equates with progress.These voices fall into four main areas.

• Post modernist and post structuralist thinkers;

• Feminists empowering postmodern discourse with value laden analyses of power;

• Post colonial thinkers with a debt to neo-Marxist and critical theorists;

• Neo-humanist thinkers with an investment in all three of the above, who work from a critically spiritual perspective.

In this paper I am going to argue that a Neo-humanist vision of the futures of Futures Studies is one which will fully engage the human potential by activating a critically spiritual methodology. This is important as many of the tools of futures work are actually intended for use in anticipating and managing change (uncritically) but have little relevance when considering the nature of progress. Those methods and techniques which engage with the less analytic more visionary process of futures are much more relevant to progress because they actively involve the individuals in the act of ‘futures building’ as opposed to ‘futures scanning’.‘Progress’ here is used to mean fundamental change in the consciousness of both the individual and collective mind. It is essentially spiritual and has no clear temporal or spacial restrictions being timeless, or as Joanna Macy would have it, anchored in “deep time” [1]. Change, on the other hand, is very much associated with technical and material movement, having no connection with the inner fabric of the human psyche. There is no appreciation of spirit here, though great attention is paid to gross national product and the latest technical innovation to hit the market.Futures Studies has the potential to be responsive to future human dilemmas. But to be so it will need to make the effort to embrace tools and concepts that lie beyond the narrow pall of academic rationality as it is currently constituted. A greater space is already emerging within the field that not only tolerates but promotes imaginative and creative processes that break down the intellectual prudery of those who are attached to their own discipline and have little capacity to envision beyond narrow and self imposed confines. Thus we find music and song, poetry and story, art and theatre effective vehicles for work on deeper forms of consciousness. Visioning and imaging workshops such as those run by Joanna Macy, Elise Boulding, John Seed and Warren Ziegler (to name but a few) are growing in power and sophistication. Meditation and other reflective practices — the spiritual quest — seeking to plumb the depth of the human soul become relevant when seen within a broadened definition of rationality and research.Clearly futurists need to be able to assess and describe likely changes in the short, medium and long term but their central goal should be to facilitate areas of human endeavor which can benefit from a closer linkage between action, the consciousness that informs and directs the action and the spirit that underwrites the consciousness. Equally clear is the fact that not all futures trends are as relevant to this deeper layer of operation within Futures Studies.     

An assessment of futures studies worldwide

This article is based on a recent survey of the futures field. For a report of the survey, see Futures Studies : An International Survey by John McHale and Magda Cordell McHale. The full report on the survey was published by UNITAR, December 1975 and may be purchased from UN Sales Section, Room LX 2300, New York, NY 10017, USA or from Palais de Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. The expansion of the subject is shown by the growing number of conferences, publications, secretariats and commissions, and the subject is characterised by a drive for professional recognition and higher standards of methodological rigour. Changes in futures studies include: the shift from linear forecasting towards more normative modes that consider a range of alternative futures; and a new predominance of social science over physical science among practitioners. Whereas futures studies used to have the appearance of a disciplinary enclave it now appears increasingly like a social movement, attracting a degree of involvement similar to that of the civil rights movement, ecology, or consumerism.     

The future of health futures

Health futures represents the application of various futures tools to the arenas of health and health care. This special issue of Futures reflects the significant growth of health futures. Health and health-care systems can be far better by the early 21st century, or they could be worse. Health futures enables individuals, organizations and communities to understand better the threats and opportunities facing their health, both of which are profound. The International Health Futures Network is an indicator of the growth of this subfield of futures. The future of health futures will be shaped by the ability of futures techniques and those who use them to provide value to organizations and individuals. Better networking among health futurists, expert systems, and the ability to measure and communicate quality will be essential.     

Design futures in action: Documenting experiential futures for participatory audiences

The futures field demonstrates a willing openness in embracing methodologies, approaches, and influences from a diversity of disciplines and perspectives. This plurality of practice is evidenced in a growing body of work that increasingly embodies futures thinking in the design of everyday material and networked experiences. The intersection of design and futures produces artifacts, applications and interactions created to provoke dialog in an accessible manner. As part of the Futures special issue on the Emerge: Artists and Scientists Redesign the Future event, this article describes the documentation and public representation of the creative outcomes from nine Emerge design futures workshops. These workshops provided a rich opportunity to study how designers and futurists collaboratively engage, implement and communicate alternative futures. The goal of the documentation effort described is to capture the experience of creating experiential futures and extend the capacity for developing social foresight through a participatory exhibit and online social platform.     

Transcending flatland: Implications of Ken Wilber's meta-narrative for futures studies

The Western futures project was originally founded on empiricist notions of prediction, forecasting and control. While other approaches to futures work, other traditions and ways of knowing, have certainly become established, the early framing of Futures Studies arguably occurred out of this broadly reductionist framework—what Wilber has since termed `flatland'. As a result, current ideologies such as: economic growth, globalisation, the pre-eminence accorded to science and technology, and `man's conquest of nature'—were insufficiently problematised. Technology-led views of the future remain influential within Futures Studies, bureaucratic thinking and popular culture. In this view, the future is less open than it might be because it is seen merely as an extension of the present. Critical Futures Studies question such assumptions. The paper explores how the work of this leading transpersonal synthesist can contribute both to a broadening and deepening of Futures Studies and thus help to activate cultural options that are presently obscured.     

Integrating futures studies with organizational development: Design options for the scenario project ‘RWS2020’

Most futures studies are not used by managers and strategists and do not influence the direction of organizational development. Although the contribution of future studies to management is in theory all but self-evident, the practice in organizations is that futures knowledge is hardly used, or at most, is used selectively and strategically (‘politically’). This article acknowledges that gap and claims that it is a fundamental divide between to very different domains. However, out of that re-conceptualization of the relation between futures studies and management, a new direction for an integrated praxis arises. In an empirical case study, we show that by means of an intelligent process-design and professional balancing of several key-dilemmas, futures studies can be connected to management processes and organizational development. The future can be brought back into the everyday practice of management. However, in order to do so, the futures field needs to set aside some of its methodological claims and move towards the field of strategic management. Not because futurists need to abandon their specific knowledge and expertise, but to make the most of it.     

Futures studies and the policy sciences

Part of the current evaluation of the work of the Swedish Secretariat for Futures Studies focuses on the practicality and legitimacy of futures studies in relation to the policy sciences. Two crucial issues are focused on, first the justification and relevance of futures studies methodological approaches and their rigorous application to areas of public policy importance and second, the measures by which futures studies can be evaluated in the light of different time frames. Although there are differences between the policy sciences and futures studies approaches which require further analysis, there nevertheless is a symbiotic relationship between the two. The legitimacy of futures studies as a relevant public policy exercise should not be at issue.     

Eleonora Masini: Nurturing visions of the future

This profile is an overview of the remarkable career of Eleonora Barbieri Masini, the mother of Futures Studies, who dedicated her professional life to nurturing hopeful visions of the future. She was a leading proponent for studying the future and a reviewer of the field. An Italian sociologist, Masini was first influenced by French thinkers, then by the advocacy of Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of the Club of Rome, with whom she became a close friend. During the change swirling around her beloved Europe, as it struggled for post-war reconstruction, she helped establish the World Futures Studies Federation, taking this global network of futurists behind the Iron Curtain and into the developing world. She was always on the move, particularly seeking out and encouraging women to take seriously their special role in both envisioning and creating the future. Her own hope for the future, which she held against the tide, helped lift her beyond a bleak present.     

Futures studies comes of age: twenty-five years after The limits to growth

Twenty-five years ago, the publication of The limits to growth marked a period of accomplishments in the futures field. Today, futures studies is experiencing another burst of development and is ready to move more fully into mainstream intellectual life and the standard educational curriculum. In addition to continued work on methods, theory, and empirical research, the resolution of three issues might help persuade established academic communities of the serious purposes and sound intellectual contributions of futurists. They are (1) the adoption of an adequate theory of knowledge (critical realism is proposed), (2) the recognition that prediction does play a role in futures studies (so we can deal explicitly with the philosophical challenges it poses), and (3) the formulation and justification of core values (so we have a valid basis by which to judge the desirability of alternative futures). I propose a critical discourse among futurists in order to resolve each issue. The desire to make futures thinking a part of everyone's education is not, of course, mere futurist chauvinism, but is based on the conviction that futures studies has important contributions to make to human well-being.     

Foresight defined as a component of Strategic Management

This paper explores basic theoretical affinities between Foresight and Futures and Strategic Management, arguing that at this point in its development, Foresight can best be understood and deployed as an explicitly managerial discipline.The growth of Foresight and Futures Studies as a discipline has been less robust than the internal logic of the field would predict, potentially indicating an opportunity for theoretical renewal. Foresight is often justified on managerial grounds, with the argument that a discipline is needed to guide decision-making in a technologically aggressive, post-industrial society. Some within Foresight and Futures Studies have argued for the active development of alternatives to these managerial justifications. However, the links between Strategic Management and Futures Studies are robust and the embrace of cross-disciplinary dialogue has proven invigorating in some other disciplines. An evaluation of the goals and logic of Foresight from the standpoint of mainstream Strategic Management gives a novel perspective on the field, highlighting its importance to information processing. Finally, Foresight speaks to well-established normative problems with short-term biases in managerial contexts. For the purposes of this article, the terms “Foresight” and “Futures Studies” are used interchangeably to refer to the general study of futures.